From b5528fa92114afc5fade875a3b0de33d190825d3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Greg Tonoski <111286121+GregTonoski@users.noreply.github.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 23:18:13 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Updated Comments:BIP 0341 (markdown)

---
 Comments:BIP-0341.md | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Comments:BIP-0341.md b/Comments:BIP-0341.md
index abb4475..df3a5f8 100644
--- a/Comments:BIP-0341.md
+++ b/Comments:BIP-0341.md
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 > Is this safe to do [using original key-pair - the one without TapTweaking]? In simple cases, yes. BIP341 recommends always tweaking, even when there are no scripts involved, because of interaction with certain other protocols that could be built on top. But if all you're going for is single-key signing, you could in theory get away with using keys untweaked. - https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/109716/can-you-use-un-tweaked-public-key-with-p2tr
 
-There is the should-type requirement of hardcoded constant "TapTweak" in derivation of a private-public key pair used in a spending path that excludes scripts in the BIP-0341 specification. I think that the requirement is unnecessary or too restrictive. I would suggest replacing the requirement with a cautionary note and leaving an option to derive ("TapTweak") a new key to an owner's discretion instead. Reasons:
+There is the should-type requirement of hardcoded constant "TapTweak" in derivation of a private-public key pair used in a spending path that excludes scripts in the BIP-0341 specification. I think that the requirement is unnecessary or too restrictive. I would suggest replacing the requirement with a cautionary note and leaving an option to derive ("TapTweak") a new key pair to an owner's discretion instead. Reasons:
 1. avoidance/minimisation of a number of hardcoded values (in accordance with commonly accepted best practices);
 2. keeping requirements specification consice and of high relevance to changes in protocol and consensus rules.
\ No newline at end of file